- Messages
- 4,945
- Reaction score
- 4,212
that's a bunch of hooey. i'm a professional accountant, but there's plenty of times when i need to be motivated.
JS: Blame for underachieving season falls on Mike McCarthy, Ted Thompson
- Thread starter packerbacker78
- Start date
-
- Tags
- packers
that's a bunch of hooey. i'm a professional accountant, but there's plenty of times when i need to be motivated.
- Messages
- 1,176
- Reaction score
- 382
Sorry, didn't think I needed the 
- Messages
- 4,945
- Reaction score
- 4,212
you didn't.Sorry, didn't think I needed the
Still a hot button topic everywhere... after cooling down any new thoughts ?
- Messages
- 4,601
- Reaction score
- 3,262
Not really any new thoughts. MM and TT will keep doing the things the way they always have, and the results will be the same... If you're goal is to merely make the playoffs then it will be a success. If your goal is to make a serious run at another SB title then you will be disappointed...
- Messages
- 13,774
- Reaction score
- 6,591
I don't think it's anyone's goal to just win a division. We have now had 9 super bowl winners the past 9 years showing how difficult it is.
If we as fans expect a deep run in January each year yes we will be disappointed. The league is not set up for that. Green Bay and New England have in reality defied odds the last 10 years.
- Messages
- 1,176
- Reaction score
- 382
I assume you mean nine different winners in the last nine years? Otherwise, having nine winners in nine years is pretty much a given. 
Even then, don't the Giants have two?
However, I understand what you're getting at. My rebuttal to the 'goal' part is the defense of TT and MM when they're criticized for not bringing home more than one Lombardi - "we've been in the playoffs more than anyone else", which reads to me as if that faction thinks that's a reasonable expectation/goal.
As for the second paragraph, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a deep run in the playoffs when they're in the playoffs every year. I don't know which timeframe to use, but I'd also question (in the context of a deep run) using New England with the Pack - the lack of that deep run is part of the heartburn for many of us.
Even then, don't the Giants have two?However, I understand what you're getting at. My rebuttal to the 'goal' part is the defense of TT and MM when they're criticized for not bringing home more than one Lombardi - "we've been in the playoffs more than anyone else", which reads to me as if that faction thinks that's a reasonable expectation/goal.
As for the second paragraph, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a deep run in the playoffs when they're in the playoffs every year. I don't know which timeframe to use, but I'd also question (in the context of a deep run) using New England with the Pack - the lack of that deep run is part of the heartburn for many of us.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 13,774
- Reaction score
- 6,591
The NFL playoffs are like the NCAA March Madness. One and done. One bad game one bad bounce or one bad call and your done. Add into the fact that there were no dominate elite teams. I don't think making the playoffs guarantee a deep run in January either. Ask Washington or Houston or even KC.I assume you mean nine different winners in the last nine years? Otherwise, having nine winners in nine years is pretty much a given.
However, I understand what you're getting at. My rebuttal to the 'goal' part is the defense of TT and MM when they're criticized for not bringing home more than one Lombardi - "we've been in the playoffs more than anyone else", which reads to me as if that faction thinks that's a reasonable expectation/goal.
As for the second paragraph, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a deep run in the playoffs when they're in the playoffs every year. I don't know which timeframe to use, but I'd also question (in the context of a deep run) using New England with the Pack - the lack of that deep run is part of the heartburn for many of us.
It's why I try my best to be realistic. It takes many pieces to win it all. Coaching. Talent. Luck injuries. Did the 2 best teams in the league play yesterday? Debate able
- Messages
- 1,176
- Reaction score
- 382
Fair enough. I probably should leave it alone, but a couple of points.
I'm a pre-Lombardi Packer fan. They lost a gut-wrencher in '60, and it became obvious that "that's never going to happen again". I fully understand that there are significant differences between then and now, but you can, especially when you're supposed to, win, you do it. That those other 31 teams can't, either, doesn't matter to me in that I'm only concerned with one team.
I agree that making the playoffs doesn't guarantee a deep run - that was supposed to be a point in the other post. Making the playoffs year after year (but not getting the brass ring) shouldn't be the excuse for perceived bad personnel/coaching moves. Don't understand bringing those other teams into the discussion - the point was supposed to be the annual failure (as I define a trophy-less year) in the playoffs, and those guys just started.
Hard to argue with your second paragraph, but it IS interesting. Realism is supposed to be my bailiwick, often referred to as negativism. If realism is a shrug of the shoulders and acceptance of not winning it all because it's hard to do, then I've got to re-define my own POV.
Finally, were those the two best teams? Certainly, by one definition they were, in that they were the last two standing. However, I understand where you're coming from, and the real answer (to me) is "first define 'best', and we'll talk". Heck, for the purpose of this particular forum, was the 2010 season winner the best?
I'm a pre-Lombardi Packer fan. They lost a gut-wrencher in '60, and it became obvious that "that's never going to happen again". I fully understand that there are significant differences between then and now, but you can, especially when you're supposed to, win, you do it. That those other 31 teams can't, either, doesn't matter to me in that I'm only concerned with one team.
I agree that making the playoffs doesn't guarantee a deep run - that was supposed to be a point in the other post. Making the playoffs year after year (but not getting the brass ring) shouldn't be the excuse for perceived bad personnel/coaching moves. Don't understand bringing those other teams into the discussion - the point was supposed to be the annual failure (as I define a trophy-less year) in the playoffs, and those guys just started.
Hard to argue with your second paragraph, but it IS interesting. Realism is supposed to be my bailiwick, often referred to as negativism. If realism is a shrug of the shoulders and acceptance of not winning it all because it's hard to do, then I've got to re-define my own POV.
Finally, were those the two best teams? Certainly, by one definition they were, in that they were the last two standing. However, I understand where you're coming from, and the real answer (to me) is "first define 'best', and we'll talk". Heck, for the purpose of this particular forum, was the 2010 season winner the best?
- Messages
- 1,123
- Reaction score
- 789
No, we weren't the 'best' in 2010, but we were the hottest and won the playoff tournament. We might have been the hottest just two SBs ago, but didn't get the 'luck' part of the equation down.
The ironic part of this discussion is that you can't win the SB without making the playoffs. MM and TT have gotten us to the NFL's version of the 'Dance' repeatedly. The frustration is how close we've come and how one or two things (TT's FA allergies) might have put us over the top. Every year I read on different boards how we should be more like this team or do things like that team. Hell, three years ago a lot of posters on this site thought we should be more like the 49ers (c'mon, you remember too.) How'd that one work out?
We're stuck with MM and TT for now and that's a problem most of the teams wish they had.
The ironic part of this discussion is that you can't win the SB without making the playoffs. MM and TT have gotten us to the NFL's version of the 'Dance' repeatedly. The frustration is how close we've come and how one or two things (TT's FA allergies) might have put us over the top. Every year I read on different boards how we should be more like this team or do things like that team. Hell, three years ago a lot of posters on this site thought we should be more like the 49ers (c'mon, you remember too.) How'd that one work out?
We're stuck with MM and TT for now and that's a problem most of the teams wish they had.